Valerie “Old Irony Pants” Jarrett

[P]residential advisor Valerie Jarrett … tweeted, that “If there’s one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting women from violence.” Jarrett’s tweet comes the same hour Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the Obama administration would allow women to serve in combat. [more]

No, not those wimmin, those wimmin.
No, not that kind of violence, that kind of violence.
Wimmin need special treatment from the law, but they should be treated the same as men under the law.
Or sumpthin’ …
(What? Oh, I dunno. I get sooo confused when Pogs open their pie holes and let their words drivel out.)

Women serving on the front line? Yeah, so?
Look, I’m sure it’s okay. No, really.
I’m sure that when the draft is reinstated (i.e. “preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”), your “darling little girl” won’t be required to serve on the front lines to have her face and body disfigured in combat, just as your son won’t be required to serve on the front lines if he‘s drafted. [/sarc]

You’re a brave one, Leon.
… as are all the Progettes above draftable age.

I don’t care what pseudo-equality bilge you’ve been sold — as a man, it’s your friggin’ duty to protect women.
The least a guy can do is teach wimmin how to shoot, help ‘em buy a weapon, and let ‘em carry concealed.
The protection against violence thing then becomes a lot more equal, and the resulting reduced need to be accompanied by a male protector enhances femalekind’s independence and upward mobility.
God created Man, but Samuel Colt made them equal. (or similar sentiments of indeterminate authorship)

(What? Yeah, or let ‘em go to kick-boxing class.)

UPDATE BTF: »
My commentary Is not aimed at women’s ability or desire to fight or even at the military practicalities.
(I never intend to get into that debate.)
It is directed at family considerations and the PC pseudo-equality hypocrisy.
It’s also a warning of unintended consequences.
If women can serve on the front line (even as volunteer professionals), then there’s no egalitarian argument that prevents them from being required to serve on the front line, since men can be.
That implies than when a draft is reinstated, your precious little princess may be forced to face front-line deprivation and battle trauma. Why? For a Prog fantasy, not out of practical necessity.
I don’t think society has faced-up to that horror.
It’s certainly not been brought up for discussion by our heroic SecDef.

31 Comments!

  1. Jess
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 3:37 pm |

    Well, the only thing that comes to mind about women in combat is that if I was the enemy, and I really, really wanted to ruin the morale of a unit, I’d wound the first woman I had in my sights, wait for the the men to make an extra strong effort to save her and take them all out, one by one.

    So, I don’t recommend you join the infantry, if you’re a woman. You’ll be first and last.

  2. SondraK, Queen of my domain
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 3:38 pm |

    Dougie is so dreeeeeeeemy….sigh….

  3. SondraK, Queen of my domain
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 3:43 pm |

    Oh and WAR ON WOMEN!!!

    or something…

  4. mojo
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm |

    The usual weaseling crap from the progs.

    “Women CAN serve in combat (if they choose to).”

    I don’t remember being given the fucking choice.

  5. SondraK, Queen of my domain
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm |

    allow women to serve in combat

    HOO-HAH!

  6. Posted January 23, 2013 at 4:02 pm |

    I don’t think anyone has ever embodied my idea of the Perfect Woman™ more than Reba McIntire in that basement scene in the movie Tremors, with Michael Gross where they kill the giant graboid who was trying to get into the wrong rec room..

    Lock and Load Baby!

  7. rickn8or
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 4:54 pm |

    Nice of Panetta to handle this particular item before he dives out the door…

  8. DougM (Progophobe)
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 6:10 pm |

    ^ Yeah, and I assume Congress has bought-off on that.
    Wait, no not “assume.”
    Oh, what’s the word?
    Oh, yeah … doubt.

  9. staghounds
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 6:19 pm |

    Women have been dying in wars for a long time.

    It’s assigning them to kill that gets everyone all confruserated.

  10. geezerette
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 6:20 pm |

    I suppose they’d be quit scary as long as it was day 2.

  11. ZZMike
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 7:00 pm |

    Isn’t that sexist or something? We want to protect women from violence – what about everybody else? Men and children especially. Everybody else can fend for theirselves.

    Maybe we could repeat (or at least paraphrase) a little bit of history (aviation history) and put together an all-woman infantry company. (Satirists can go wild on that one.)

    On the other hand, there are more than a few women who could hold their own in a street fight.

  12. Colonel Jerry USMC
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 7:30 pm |

    Women can`t carry the modern loads for combat. Men today may carry 80 lbs of extra ammo and supplies, a whole day and night. And still have to fight or stay awake all night. It takes 4 men to carry a litter with a wounded man in it.

    Plus the savages we fight are not gonna abide by the Geneva Convention when it comes to a female POW! The Israilis tried it in the Yom Kippur war and found out it did not work….

  13. Posted January 23, 2013 at 7:35 pm |

    Mixing men and women in a front-line unit is a recipe for disaster. You can be sure they won’t be getting a SAW or put on weapons squad. Resentment, mistrust, anger, and infighting will be rampant. Where are they going to stay? What are they going to do after being in the field two weeks without a shower? You gonna tell them to “man up” and “pull it together” when they start freaking out and screaming? Who in the world would want such a terrible job? It’s really not very fun. I promise. Not to mention, if women are there why would I, as a man want to be there? If it’s not my duty to protect women anymore, why should I bother? You can do it yourself? Fine with me. I’ll stay back here in the states where everyone I pass on the street doesn’t want me dead and I don’t have to worry about running over IEDs or snipers or RPKs.

  14. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 8:01 pm |

    I’ve met a few women whom I’d like to have my back in a fight, but they were the exception, not the rule, and likewise I’m sure there is a small percentage of women who could be good infantry, armor and artillery troops. I’ve heard there are some who do well now in gunship and fighter cockpits, but I’m not sure how they would do if forced to the ground in a SERE situation.
    All the men in our volunteer military who qualify in combat arms meet a certain strength and endurance standard for their MOS, and are cut if they don’t measure up.
    Currently, according to a few younger friends serving as ground and air officers in the Marines, Navy and Army, there is very much a double standard for physical fitness and mental toughness between men and women, and women often get extra tries to succeed at a training or career stage measurement point in blatant affirmative actions to showcase more women in tougher and more responsible positions.
    And bluntly, young women get a sometimes a physical and mental disability once/ month, and young people being what they are, some women in important slots will get pregnant and leave a combat outfit shorthanded. Sounds sexist, takes two to tango etc, but it is the woman half of the two who manifests the problem.
    With Doug’s reservations about Western civ’s ingrained chivalry toward women, I guess I can live with it if:
    1. training standards are made absolutely uniform and gender blind, with only one standard for success.
    2. affirmative action must be gone.
    3. women now register for the draft.

    Otherwise, this is nothing more than feminazi politicking for some unearned combat awards to punch their promotion tickets, and more Prog social engineering to fit their utopian templates. They’ve forgotten the job of a military organization is to win. We miss that a whole bunch lately, and not at the grunt level either. Those young guys at the tip of the spear still want to win and come home.

  15. mech
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 9:59 pm |

    Early analysis by Rush:

    All American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion

  16. Paul
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 10:11 pm |

    Every major country in the WORLD figured out putting women in front line combat positions was not good unless your back was against the wall.

    But Obama figures it’s a job program. Once he as destroyed the middle class, well where else can women in that category go?

    Yea it’s all about jobs, at least in Obama’s view, but Al Qaeda has other ideas. To them it’s a holy war.

  17. Lance
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 11:34 pm |

    IDF!

  18. Spin
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 2:06 am |

    The Israelis tried it in the Yom Kippur war and found out it did not work….

    Yet their women have served in every one of it’s wars and conflicts for 64+ years. Mandatory draft even…

  19. Colonel Jerry USMC
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 6:28 am |

    IDF women are trained in weapons firing, but are prohibited from serving as infantry, armor and artillery as her primary duty. They do serve in those units, but as supporting elements, removed from the front lines. Such as logistics, administration and medical. In the flluidness of all IDF wars, some women have been forced to defend themselves and their unit, the same as the men but not for long and not as their primary duty.

    This is a summary of a briefing the IDF gave to our DOD back in 1978. I got that report from IDF Colonel Avigador Kahalani(Tanker), the hero of the Golan Heights in the Yom Kippur war. He sat next to me for a year at the Army Command and General Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas.

  20. DougM (Progophobe)
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 8:08 am |

    (see UPDATE BTF)

  21. geezerette
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 8:08 am |

    The whole thing has to do with classification and who gets paid what for what they do.

  22. Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause*
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 8:17 am |

    Nice timing on this — the Same Day Hillary! “takes full responsibility” for whatever What Difference Does It Make?!? happened in Benghazi – and wanders off into HisHerstory.

    “equal” ≠ “The Same As”

  23. Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause*
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 8:35 am |

    a double standard for physical fitness and mental toughness between men and women

    There’s the rub. How insulting is it to lower the standards “because you’re only a a girl”?!? Why aren’t the Feministas objecting to that?!?

    I’ve failed to do many things in my life – from physics to fencing — because I just couldn’t cut the mustard. Did it bother me? Oh HELL yeah. But I learned to cope with my shortcomings and to develop my strengths.

    So I buy Physicists beers and listen to their discussions and I go get the pizza and put on buckets of wire clips because 1] I can do that and B] men hate that kind of fiddly little crap and I enjoy it. But I can’t lift a roll of bo’b wire and I can’t pound in a t-post. [well, I can but it takes me half a day. That's just silly.].

    IF there are a sufficient number of women who can make it thru the PT requirements AS THEY STAND for front-line combat – with the mental toughness requirements and the SERE requirements and all – give ‘em their own troop/brigade/whatcha-call-it.

    Meanwhile, it has always been thus that some female pilots have flown into “hot” areas – then been denied combat pay because they weren’t “officially” there. Yeah, it ain’t fair. But, Honey — yer flying. Yer doing it. And ya got your bird and your crew home whole. Such is Life.

  24. mojo
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 8:43 am |

    It’s biology, people. Males are the risk-takers because they’re expendable. That’s why the higher aggression, the greater body mass and endurance, all of it. They can afford the energy expenditure, because they’re not building children.

    Women and children first: it’s not just a good idea, it’s biologically programmed.

  25. mojo
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 8:50 am |

    Oh, and ladies? That whole “won’t ask for directions” thing?

    See, for hundreds of thousands of years, asking for directions while out in the field was a real good way to get killed.

  26. Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause*
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 9:04 am |

    Good point, Mojo – I’d never thot of that.

    Mostly because every Man I’ve ever known could be air-dropped blindfolded into any strange city/countryside and find his way to where he wanted to go cuz he knew how to read the lay of the land. Taught by his Father and Uncles and “practiced” by his older brothers/cousins…

    I’m glad my Dad taught me lots of that lay of the land stuff.

  27. Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause*
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 9:35 am |

    our heroic SecDef.

    Ya mean the one who’s also slinking off into History?

  28. mojo
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 11:36 am |

    Claire: yeah, men and women navigate by different means – women tend to use landmarks and the like, where men tend to use direction/distance.

    I also like to say that men think logically where women think emotionally, but it always get me in trouble. The women always object. Emotionally.

    Yeah, like that.

  29. DougM (Progophobe)
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 12:22 pm |

    ^ Well, emotionally is not always wrong,
    but it is always irritating to the male;
    and logically is not always right,
    but it is always frustrating to the female.
    (What? Yep, always been single. That obvious, huh?)

  30. TiminAL
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 8:06 pm |

    Considering many women have died overseas on my behalf already, I don’t feel qualified to have an objection to women in combat.

  31. Posted January 24, 2013 at 10:38 pm |

    We’re only here to provide them with some sperms.